[CONTENT NOTE: Contains references to rape, and discussion of depictions of sexual and physical abuse that may be distressing.]

It should have surprised nobody that reactions to the debut of Gaylene Preston's Christchurch quake drama Hope and Wire (Three, Thursdays, 8.30) were polarized to put it mildly -- including here on Public Address. But what really did surprise me, and shouldn't have for a moment, was this passage in Christchurch Press writer Vicki Anderson's strongly negative Hope and Wire like punch to the stomach:

Later I showed the first episode of Hope and Wire to a colleague for his reaction.

"It's like they are raping the city," he said. "And what shocking acting. I'm off home now, I'll wade through old-school stereotypes and several skirmishes with skinheads to get there."

I'll save everyone a lot of time and say this up front. I'm writing this in suburban Auckland. And inevitably, I'm watching Hope and Wire at a distance - in every conceivable sense - it would it be downright arseholy to expect Anderson, her colleages at The Press who lost a co-worker in their now demolished headquarters, or anyone else in Christchurch to share. But I really wasn't overly impressed and Tweeted accordingly:

The problem with 1st night of #HopeAndWire is that it's a docudrama that isn't much of a documentary, and only fitfully works as drama.

The point where I turned off was when Stereotypical Racist Skinhead punched Equally Stereotypical Goth Girlfriend in the stomach. And judging from the promos for next week, she's not the first woman he's going to assault.

And that's probably going to be the point where I turn off for good, for one very simple reason. I don't know about the Christchurch quakes and their seemingly endless aftermath. I can't answer the question whether Hope and Wire is "too soon", "too much", "not enough" or a half-boiled curate's egg. (Philip Matthews long and thoughtful review is all the more impressive for not even trying to.)

But I know exactly what being raped is like. Over twenty five years ago, while at boarding school, I was anally raped with an object by a pack of thugs who thought it would be cool to humiliate the faggot. I wiped the blood off my arse, hid (and later burned) my stained pants and kept my damn mouth shut for two decades. Because I knew I wouldn’t be believed. Because I knew the verbal and physical bullying would just get worse; and that there would be people absolutely convinced that if I wasn’t a mentally unstable and malicious liar that I must have done something to deserve it. Like actually being gay — and we all know what those people are like, right?

It still affects my life, every relationship and action. And Anderson's "colleague" can take it from me that it's abso-fraking-loutely nothing like any of the many television shows I've found infinitely less palatable than Hope and Wire.

But the fine editors at The Press and Stuff website who published Anderson's column shouldn't take my word for it. Ask anyone at Christchurch's only rape crisis center -- but they can't because it closed the same day the review was published and the media was far too busy sniggering over David Cunliffe's manpology... without troubling themselves with the rest of a speech that rather admirably spoke some much needed truth to Kiwi rape culture.

If Anderson wants to continue as a television critic, perhaps she'd like to start exploring why rape is so pervasive on popular and/or critically acclaimed shows. Like Scandal and House of Cards for two. Downton Abbey and Breaking Bad for two more. Mad Men and every damn season of American Horror Story. Even Game of Thrones (whose pilot kicked off with a violent wedding night rape and steadily went downhill from there) finally hit it's very special low -- though (Gods be praised!) plenty of men were on hand to explain how it wasn't really rape. If you couldn't afford to subscribe to Soho, Prime is currently playing season three and next week has the charming episode where three different female characters are subjected to graphic threats of rape and murder in consecutive scenes.

That would be a more useful exercise than comparing one of the highest profile women in New Zealand's film industry to a rapist.

And it might be a good start to an honest self-examination of Because that's how rape culture works, and I'm over it. It's dying a little bit more when television shows women constantly subjected to relentless threats of sexual and physical violence. It's feeling a surge of impotent rage when the Willie Jacksons, John Tamiheres and Bob Joneses of the media are more interested in slut-shaming victims rather than holding rapists to account for their crimes. And it's when people who should know better -- like everyone at a major metropolitan newspaper -- trivialise human suffering by using "rape" as a rhetorical flourish.

A few paragraphs on, Anderson writes: "I also felt fiercely protective of how my city and my fellow residents had been portrayed. After all, we're in this together, right?" I don't presume to speak for all abuse survivors, in Christchurch or anywhere else. But yet again, I don't feel the media is anywhere near us. And that has to stop.

[Comments on this post won't be open are open, but I'm mostly off-line until Wednesday afternoon. Everyone please be mindful that Public Address is a safe space for everyone - including women and abuse victims.]

32 responses to this post

Thank you Craig. And though it's not about my personal experience, it is about that of so many who have been and still get abused, those who aren't able to 'toughen up and get over it', but who carry the hidden scars for so very long. People I know who find themselves reflexively pulling back from potential intimacy, even of merely friendship, because that's the lesson they have learnt -- it's not safe to connect. I am not putting this well, but I strongly support your point of view and thank you for it.

Seen as how you introduced the ” sorry for being a man” faux pas to your blog. I am going to say something, and with trepidation at the concept of maned up vigilantes who don’t understand how it feels to be turned away from a victims of sexual abuse facility housed in a public hospital, because the organization did not recognize male victims of abuse. Well I can tell you, it hurts. That was during the late 1990s.

And it is still often the case today that men's assault services are run as off-shoots of women's refuge services, at least intentionally (don't know what the current state of affairs is in NZ) and are are even less-resourced than the refuges themselves.

I think some context as to why men have been poorly-served that sense might be of interest. Women fought long and hard to set up the original refuges - they didn't get any handouts to do so. Their focus was getting women and kids out of unsafe situations and into homes where the abusers couldn't follow them. But unfortunately, yes, that focus on getting away from the (mostly male) abusers meant of course that male victims were not welcome in the "safe space".

I don't think anyone who works in the sector would deny the fact that men are victimised and women can be abusers. But their remit was originally and still primarily is for women and children's safety. If the Refuge movement were specifically to extend their focus on providing DV victim support to everyone, I would very happily support this and contribute to their coffers as I do now.

But I also think that blaming Refuge for not catering for male victims (and I heard it more than once) is a bit unfair. It came out of a grassroots feminist effort to take care of each other, mostly by women who'd been abused themselves. There has been nothing to stop motivated men from doing the same themselves (like fundraising for prostate cancer getting same awareness as breast cancer). I've actually been surprised that the queer community hasn't stepped up there, although of course that doesn't help straight men.

But again, I think it'd be useful to have some overarching support organisation. With govt kicking in more than they do now.

But I also think that blaming Refuge for not catering for male victims (and I heard it more than once) is a bit unfair.

Well I have never done that, but I would like to challenge you to show me where, in the New Zealand labour party's policy, there is any meaningful recognition that men don't cope with being raped, bashed and emotionally abused to well.

Would you please consider the possibility, that neglecting to address this at a governmental level, but at the same time asking for collective responsibility, could be counter productive. Do you really think that men starting up Men's political movement like the feminist movement, to fight for access to adequate metal health care and justice is a going to end well?

I followed your comments on the Hope and Wire review post, where you made a discussion about the dramatisation of a natural disaster, and the effect on thousands of people, about your particular response to the word rape.

“It’s like they are raping the city,” he said. “And what shocking acting. I’m off home now, I’ll wade through old-school stereotypes and several skirmishes with skinheads to get there.”

The word "rape" means:

The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering.

Often it is used to refer to sexual force but that is not the only meaning. Rape was a property crime, and women were property.

And, after four years of having Gerry as an overlord, it does feel like Christchurch has had things taken by force, it does feel like property has been seized by violent means, it does feel like robbery, and it does feel like plundering.It is a valid word to use, and for some here it is a valid description of what has happened here.

I'm flattered, but also somewhat bemused, you think my superpower is bending any discussion among the habitually bloody-minded Public Address community to my will. But that's not the case, no matter how often I'd like it to be so.

Beyond that, I've precisely zero interest in playing dueling dictionaries, but I'll leave this from the online OED I've got open in the next door tab.

Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.

I'm not terribly impressed with Anderson, The Press or Stuff right now. But I will do them the basic courtesy of assuming they're literate and have some feeling for common usage.

Sorry Craig, I have unfinished business with Tracy’s comment. I will not be offended if you remove my comment.

Tracy, your comment is patronizing. I give you the analogy, Israel and Palestine. What you have basically said is that the militant feminist movement from the 1970s owns humanity, So don’t come crying to us if you suffer the affects of abuse when you where a child, Organize your own militant group.

Steven, I've removed the unnecessary and offensive last line of your comment. I recognise your real stake in a discussion like this, but that wasn't taking us anywhere good.

Tracy was talking about how and why Refuge developed as a safe space for women suffering violence from men. I think that rather than try and change that identity, we should ask why there aren't those spaces for the men who need them.

I'm with Russell on this, but truly thanks for engaging and I do respect where you're coming from because hell... been there. But this is also one of those times where, you know, everyone's right. Womens Refuge isn't the problem here. This is one area where one size really doesn't fit all -- and there are people out there who are just as focused on meeting the very specific needs of male survivors of abuse. And just like WR, they really do deserve a hell of lot more support (and not just from government) than they get.

Fighting a pervasive and so often invisible culture of abuse shouldn't be a zero sum game, even though it so often seems that way.

This would also be a great time to assure folks who've e-mailed me about aspects of this post, especially those who've shared their own experience of abuse, that they will not be published here - or quoted - without your SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT consent.

Kind of shit that even needs saying, but there you go and here we are.

There has been nothing to stop motivated men from doing the same themselves

I trust you're aware of the fight to get domestic violence and marital rape recognised as issues, then crimes? And the reactions ranging from mirth to things that were not funny? I invite you to think about how those reactions would be affected when it's men who are the so-called "victims" of things that obviously can't possibly happen to men, or if they do it's because the "man" can't follow the "be a man" script?

I've actually been surprised that the queer community hasn't stepped up there, although of course that doesn't help straight men.

They have. But it takes a large city or a very peculiar set of circumstances, not least because often it's men helping men who've suffered at the hands of men. And those services are usually the first to get cut, for the same reason they're hard to establish.

Many women's refuges were slow to recognise the problem of female abusers and it's still a serious problem, as it's not easy to balance treating women who approach the shelter as potential abusers with offering them the help they obviously (seem to) need.

One further complication is that often the organisations providing men's refuges are explicitly religious and often deeply homophobic. Not to mention also practitioners or facilitators of abuse themselves. I think there's a good argument that some or all of that funding should go to groups who are explicitly accepting of their clients. Ideally before they become homeless.

Fare enough. Now, what I was talking about, has nothing to do with women’s refuge. I am talking about my own personal experience of the world.

Tracey, I am tired of being lectured about the feminist struggle, as a method of disenfranchising anyone who doesn’t fit the puzzle. I am not interested in joining men’s groups, “queer groups” or any other fringe. Because, I see sexual abuse of anyone as a social problem that can only be minimized by all of society. I propose the best way forward, is to get it all out in the open. That means, not running campaigns that ignore reality. By reality I mean, by using statistic honestly, remembering statistics are only as the study’s we do. And to not discard the minority groups from statistics, for political reasons.

I think that ACC has no place in sensitive claims. Reason, because sexual abuse is a social problem, which requires a social response. Not a corporate contract to settle damages. One of the problems with the ACC system, is that I might for argument sake, be living in a caravan park. I may have woken up to the fact that if I don’t get some sort of help with my trauma ( which I don’t understand) I am likely to commit suicide. Then again, hypothetically, I might start the process by going to the doctor, and get a referral to ACC. ACC would give me a list of practitioners phone numbers. hypothetically, I would try to make appointments with these total strangers, to tell my story in detail. After spilling my guts for the first time in my life, the health professional will start talking money; my contribution above what ACC contributes.

Ok, big deal, what if the health professional decides to give there particular dictionary version of what constitutes rape, and decides to charges a surcharge that’s the hypothetical person clearly can’t afford ( true story ).what if the Heath professional is creepy and applies pressure to enter into a therapeutic relationship (true story).What if the health professional doesn’t have have there house in order and abruptly abandons all clients because the practice is a church building and the Heath professional never have a proper lease agreement (true story). What if, after being worn down by this ordeal, our hypothetical person resigns to a routine of hand over thirty dollars in cash every Thursday at around eleven o’clock before sitting down to being a honorary women with a women who with the very best of intentions, dished out the same sort of rhetoric as the above comment Tracy made.( true story)

So, our hypothetical person gradually sunk deeper into new depths of depression. The suicidal ideation intensified… And to cut a long, long story short, the hypothetical person eventually qualified for a place at community mental health where the team put humpy dumpy together for the first time.

The hypothetical person would like to express gratitude to Kirsty, clinical phycologist at community mental heath professional.

Tracy was talking about how and why Refuge developed as a safe space for women suffering violence from men.

I suspect Tracey was mistaken. Womens Refuge in NZ was started as a place for people fleeing violence. Their about page says

1973 Women's Refuge established The first Women’s Refuge was set up in Christchurch after a group of women came together with a common interest in providing a safe haven for victims of violence.

They only very reluctantly accepted that they needed to be explicit that they only support women and children (officially in 1985), and for a long time fought any claim along those lines vigorously. What Women's Refuge do is very necessary and they do excellent work in trying conditions, but what they do is not enough. Even just for the heterosexual ciswomen in fear of male violence that are their primary focus.

Jane, I'm sorry but I've deleted your entire comment. There seemed no purpose to it but to attack Craig in a way that reached way into the realm of personal correspondence. This is not the place to sort this out.

I am a big hypersensitive, to being misunderstood. So please understand, I have no problem with women's refuge what kind of animal do people think I am?

I do however question why both the white ribbon brigade and the New Zealand Labour Party have cherry picked the Women's refuge statistics. Women's refuge has sophisticated approach to minimizing domestic violence.

My beef is with The New Zealand Labour Party encouraging the use of blunt force. I don't know any person who is suffering from complex interpersonal trauma, that would appreciate Klevin Davis and the local sports drinking and hunting wild animals club, coming around to sort out the perpetrator, for instance.

I'm not willing to talk about my experiences in detail but suffice to say that I support steven crawford wholeheartedly.

"refuge" has been a source of significant pain to many victims of violence as refuge struggled to come to terms with their own prejudices and preconceptions. The Christchurch group had a fairly mixed reputation in the Chch queer community even in the 1990s due to their difficulty dealing with women who were victims of violence from women, and their savage policies with respect to boys. You really, really, did not want to expose an adolescent boy to women's refuge in those days. I like to think it's better now, but I can't bring myself to find out.

The epitomy of my experience was being told by refuge that the only support I could get was enrollment in a group for male offenders. I am still horrified that anyone would suggest that to someone they knew had been abused by men.

That strongly colours my feelings towards women's refuge, and I accept that that makes me not the right person to decide what should be done about them. But I'd also like a little bit less dismissal of male victims from the chorus. Suggesting that men should just start their own group rather than fighting the revictimisation and abuse they get from advocates for women is missing the point. Those things are wrong, and should stop. Especially they should stop coming from people who claim to advocate for victims.

FWIW I do give money to groups helping men and boys, but I'm very much not suited to getting involved on the ground with those groups. I suggest that for many male victims of male violence, help from men is best not delivered in person. Much as we do for female victims of male violence.

For my part, I am appalled that this thread is conflating the biggest natural disaster in New Zealand, with the most ongoing effect on many people in the country’s second-biggest city with the awfulness of rape and domestic violence.

It’s a badly judged, no boundaries combination of subjects that is distressing to me and bringing down PAS.